Agenda item

Four supporting papers had been made available prior to the meeting.

George Grant explained that the figures on Appendix 3 of the report were indicative and would now need to be adjusted to take into account the change in the proposed DSG top slice from £900,000 to £800,000. 

A request was made to Schools Forum to approve the re-allocation of funds to the correct blocks in order to correct DfE baseline errors. This included a transfer from the High Needs Block to the Central School Services Block (CSSB).

In the original DfE baseline for the CSSB there was historical funding for the Virtual School.  Susan Woodland explained that she had contacted the DfE as to whether these monies could be moved from Historical into Ongoing commitments; this would safeguard the Virtual School funding.

Elements within the CSSB were also discussed. It was explained that the amount allocated to the SBC Local Safeguarding Board was an historical figure, with £30,000 supporting administration and the running of the Local Children’s Safeguarding Board, not the meetings alone.  It was added that this was a statutory requirement and that other agencies contributed to the costs of the LSCB, the amount shown was not the total budget.  It was proposed the figures be clarified.

It was noted there was a need to transfer £500,000 from the High Needs Block to Schools Block as a starting point for the current financial year, to correct a baselining error; this was a repeat of the request made the previous year.

The third report concerned the outcome of the consultation on the 5-16 formula. Two options had been put to schools (status quo, and a move to 75% of the NFF values) and responses had been returned and noted.  Schools had responded but the outcome had not been clear due to the low response rate and an even split between the two options.  The Task Group had therefore proposed a move to 65% of NFF as this was effectively halfway between the two models.  The resultant school budget shares had been highlighted to members in the report.

The fourth part of the report was a proposal by SBC to transfer 0.5% from the Schools Block to High Needs Block to support funding issues and relieve the ongoing pressure on the High Needs Block. This proposal had been subject to a consultation; of the schools had who responded, 24 had voted against the topslice, one had supported and 3 had made late submissions. It was noted that a split could be produced to show the numbers of primary and secondary schools.

The Chair thanked George Grant, Nic Barani, Susan Woodland and the Task Groups for all their work on this issue.

9.25am: Kathy Webber left the meeting

There had previously been discussion about PFI and it was queried whether there would be a further paper to clarify the PFI contribution.  George Grant explained this had come from the High Needs Block and would be evidenced in the January 2019 report to Schools Forum, confirming there would be implications for the Schools Block.

A member asked if comments from the Schools Block consultation had been shared: it was explained that the majority of schools responding had not made comments.  It was queried why the response had been so low when schools had been so vocal about their budgets.  The importance of engagement with schools was stressed and that such issues should be discussed in Headteacher groups and through feedback to Chairs of Governors and their boards.  It was suggested that the timing of the consultation had possibly influenced the low response. 

Following discussion, the various recommendations in the reports were considered together, with the following outcomes:

Ø  Schools Forum agreed to transfer £264,566 from High Needs Block to CSSB

Ø  Schools Forum agreed to transfer £500,000 from High Needs Block to Schools Block

Ø  Schools Forum agreed to re-allocate Virtual School funding of £100,000 from Historical commitment to Ongoing commitment within the CSSB

Ø  5-16 Task Group had recommended a move from 50% to 65% NFF in 2019/20 formula in view of inconclusive consultation outcome. Schools Forum endorsed the recommendation which was accepted by SBC

Ø  Schools Forum rejected SBC’s proposal to transfer 0.5% (approximately £650,000) from 5-16 Schools Block to High Needs Block, based on the outcome of the consultation with schools. SBC would not challenge the decision.  It was hoped this outcome could put pressure on central Government: members were sympathetic to SBC but could not justify the request.